- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) THE order dated 28.4.2009 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. case no.1609 of 2008 under which cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the court who has taken cognizance had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. From perusal of the record, it does appear that a complaint case was filed alleging therein that complainant having married when came to her sasural at Bankura, the accused persons including the petitioner started subjecting her to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and that she some times was also subjected to assault. Ultimately she was driven out of her house. On such allegation, complaint was lodged not at Bankura but at Dhanbad which was registered as complaint case no.1609 of 2008 under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. After holding enquiry, the court took cognizance, vide its order dated 28.4.2009 which is under challenge. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that whatever overt act constituting offence have been committed those have allegedly been committed at Bankura and not at Dhanbad and therefore, the court at Dhanbad had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence as no cause of action, according to the allegation made in the complaint, had ever accrued at Dhanbad and on this ground alone the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Bhura Ram vs. State of Rajasthan [(2008) 11 SCC 103 (SC)] and also in a case of Y. Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police [(2004) 8 SCC 100]. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on going through the record, I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner as from perusal of the complaint, it does appear that whatever overt act have been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, all that have been committed at Bankura and, therefore, no cause of action accrued to the petitioner at Dhanbad and hence, court at Dhanbad will have no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the order 28.4.2009 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad is hereby quashed in view of the decisions rendered in cases referred to above, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court, where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed. However, the complainant- opposite party no.2 would be at liberty to invoke the provision as contained in Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by approaching the court to get the complaint returned for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect. If resort is made to that provision, necessary order be passed. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of.;